Howard Levitt: Harry-and-Meghan style wokeness is making even human rights commissions look reasonable
Is our own workplace liberalism moving toward wokeness?
The Harry and Meghan saga is offering us a good demonstration of the current dramatic, liberal divide.
tap here to see other videos from our team.
Howard Levitt: Harry-and-Meghan style wokeness is making even human rights commissions look reasonable Back to video
tap here to see other videos from our team.
On the one hand, there is the King, who has modified his inaugural speech, albeit slightly, to make it welcoming to all faiths, not just the Church of England. That is traditional liberalism upon which North America has evolved. It is the stuff upon which human rights legislation advanced and employers developed, if not full affirmative action plans, then, at the very least, the encouragement of minority hires. And we are all much better off for it.
But that kind of liberalism is not the stuff of which the Duke and his wife are made. They represent the radical departure of wokeness, which, although purportedly or avowedly liberal, seeks division and to viciously attack those seen as “the powerful.” They and those like them seek to rip down, not accommodate. They believe they can increase their own stature by attempting to destroy those more powerful — in this case, those who they know cannot respond because it would be unbecoming. They appear to believe that if they shout loudly enough and scream racism, they will be embraced as popular heroes. It is rather rich and ironic coming from those two paragons of extraordinary privilege but let’s put that aside for the sake of this discussion.
Is our own workplace liberalism moving toward wokeness?
I am increasingly hearing of employees attending compulsory diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) sessions in their workplaces feeling blamed and belittled for being white males. I have also heard many Jewish Canadians recently complaining of being lumped in as part of a white overclass with concomitant animosity. (The fact that there are more hate crimes against Jews on a per capita basis than any other group, according to Statistics Canada data, is ignored.) And if you are not a member of a disadvantaged group, just claim to be. Someone sent me a 2007 article from the Globe and Mail about Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond containing the following: “Growing up in poverty on a Manitoba reserve, Ms. Turpel-Lafond endured abuse, and was surrounded by domestic violence and alcoholism in her home.” Is a single word of this true? But look at the advantages she garnered from claiming to be Cree.
This all came to mind when I received a letter from a reader berating me for attacking The Halton District School Board for permitting that parody of a teacher to walk around with giant prosthetic breasts when it had an absolute legal right to require the teacher to be a role model and dress respectfully.
The reader said that it was not the school board‘s fault but that of the Human Rights Commission, which would doubtless punish the board if it required the trans teacher in question to dress and act properly. He wrote that, while the rest of us would be punished for coming to work barefoot, this teacher can get away with it because of radical activism amongst human rights bodies and other analogous entities.
I responded that there is absolutely no chance, none, that the Human Rights Commission would penalize the school board for forcing this teacher to dress properly.
And that is the point of this column.
Not long ago, I would have characterized human rights commissions of being guilty of progressive overreach. But in the ideological battle to the bottom, they have become the sensible adults.
Human rights legislation across Canada permits bona fide occupational requirements. In other words, if it is required by the legitimate needs of an organization, conduct which might be a human rights violation otherwise can be permitted. Clearly, acting as a role model and dress codes generally are such bona fide occupational requirements for the position of a teacher. But, even more to the point, being trans does not require garish ludicrous clothing so prohibiting it is not discrimination on human rights grounds in any event. And in recent past, I have seen our human rights tribunals being sensible, rather than outlandish, in the decisions they have made. They have ceased being the radical activists of yore.
It is the universities, portions of the public sector and legions of workplace consultants and investigators that are increasingly making frontal assaults on sensibility.
Given their loud voices, too many companies are drinking their Kool-Aid.
The result: workplace division which will ultimately imperil the very progress they purportedly, and at considerable personal profit, promote.
Howard Levitt is senior partner of Levitt Sheikh, employment and labour lawyers with offices in Toronto and Hamilton. He practices employment law in eight provinces. He is the author of six books including the Law of Dismissal in Canada.
